R.i.p Intelligent Design

[Luke Rainbird]

Maybe, but that'd depend what we all believed in. I reckon a giant bald space goat with laser eyes could keep things pretty interesting

[anzo]

Maybe, but that'd depend what we all believed in. I reckon a giant bald space goat with laser eyes could keep things pretty interesting

Well there's a certain religion called Scientology...so anything is plausible.

[1a2bcio8]

I'm not sure that filling in the missing link really kills off the concept of creationism which, as I understand it in its most fundamental sense, espouses an explanation for the orgnisation of our environment as having some intelligent intent behind it - not neccesarily a specific god or figure however. In fact, evolution can have at its base, an intelligent design that acts creatively to construct variation according to the interactions of parts of the environment with other parts (i.e. life with water, land, sky, temperature, etc.) but which seems random to us. Personally, I find the idea of such a well organised/organising universe occuring on a random foundation as more outlandish than occuring with some 'intelligent' intent. And anyway, so much of what we call random simply relates to complicated matters that we can't comprehend. In the same way a book is unintelligable to a dog, same with other factors of existence for humans. If we could comprehend everything, would anything be random? Also, does the fact that life seems to be getting increasingly more complex and organised suggest something of 'intelligence'?

The situation with atheism these days seems to be just as reactionary, dogmatic and blind as that of the religion which inspired it. We need to be able to question every stance. And despite what many people think, science doesn't actually argue against religion. Almost completey do they occupy their own arenas. When they cross over and make statements about each other, this is often an overstepping of the mark.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[JD™]

The whole reason I didn't reply in this thread at all was because I assumed you'd come in and say exactly what I thought. Except for the repeating yourself bit...

I think of it like you can't create energy, merely change it's state. In the same way, perhaps you can't just 'create' intelligence and it must have been given by something intelligent.

Then again, where did the first energy/intelligence come from... The extra thoughts I can't be arsed to write down make my head hurt.

[JT!]

Atheism and religion are as blind as each other?

[Revolver]

Haha.

The only part of the creation of life that was down to chance was the atcual creation of it, out of the chemicals in the sea, that type of thing. Evolution just, makes sense. We all know that you pass down genetic traits. 'Oh, he's got his father's eyes.' 'Bloody hell, he's just like his father.' and so on. So, it's not particulary difficult to imagine this - the ape that figured out that it could stab ants through a hole with a stick ate more, so he was stronger because he'd eaten more, protein, grew more muscle, so he knocked the f**k out of the other apes when it came to mating season. Then all his offspring were strong AND smart... Multiply that by a few millions of years, and it's not which ape can stab ants with a stick through a hole, it's which dickhead bloke can treat the most women like shit, or which not-so-clever person can shoot the most missiles...

Evolution, everybody!

Personally, I think the age of survival of the fittest (darwin actually meant the most fit, the most suitable) is over. Although, in a sense, survival of the fittest, like you tell your mates the lass over there is, is where we're at now. Lol

[1a2bcio8]

The whole reason I didn't reply in this thread at all was because I assumed you'd come in and say exactly what I thought. Except for the repeating yourself bit...

I think of it like you can't create energy, merely change it's state. In the same way, perhaps you can't just 'create' intelligence and it must have been given by something intelligent.

Then again, where did the first energy/intelligence come from... The extra thoughts I can't be arsed to write down make my head hurt.

Yeah, Im sketching out with my post. I've had to edit it about 10 times. I killed off a lot of brain cells in recent months

But yeah, by analogy, in our environment, the more organised something is, the more capable it is at making something else orgnaised. I'm mostly subscribed to the idea of existence (as a whole) as an organised intelligence. Basically, the way in which it is organised, much like a brain, leads to 'intelligent' behaviour. We don't need a separate creator. We have to accept this type of 'intelligence' as a different form to standard intelligence though - a homonym. Reading this back it's a poor articulation but will have to do given my current brain state

Atheism and religion are as blind as each other?

They are when people stop accepting alternative ideas, evidence or reasoning. I am open to either there being a Christian, Islamic, Jewish god, etc. etc. or there being no God or even some yet unknown alternative. Most people fix themselves to one or the other and don't really take the time to analyse against their point of view, only for it. This is a kind of intellectual blindness.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[JT!]

They are when people stop accepting alternative ideas, evidence or reasoning. I am open to either there being a Christian, Islamic, Jewish god, etc. etc. or there being no God or even some yet unknown alternative. Most people fix themselves to one or the other and don't really take the time to analyse against their point of view, only for it. This is a kind of intellectual blindness.

Are you open to the idea that the earth is flat, even though it's been proved it's round, and there's absolutely no evidence at all it's flat?

[1a2bcio8]

Although I find it very unlikely, yes I am open to that idea. As am I open to the idea that you're an alien who's come to earth because you enjoy giving people anal probes. You just never know

The point is, regardless of the evidence against or lack of evidence, being as limited as we are (who really knows what the f**k is going on?) our intelligence can best flourish when we don't rigidly subscribe to ideas. Many things that have been considered common sense have later been found or thought to be otherwise. Every generation laughs at the stupidity of the generations that came before them, only to get laughed at themselves. None of us really know if there's a god out there. I've certainly never seen any evidence as substantial as the earth being round, regarding either stance. Thinking we do and possessing this or that fact doesn't amount to possesing a definitive knowledge. Consider the size of yourself and then the rest of the universe. Can you play football with the sun?

This isn't to say we should fall to the ground in confusion as to how impossible existence is to completely comprehend. Certainly we must choose the idea that seems most likely to us. But at the same time I find it a worthy thing to actually be able to fully look at another idea/other evidence with a potential willingness for adoption of that which we previously opposed. Of course, I often fail at this

Edited May 21, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[beigemaster]

Are you open to the idea that the earth is flat, even though it's been proved it's round, and there's absolutely no evidence at all it's flat?

JT, you should have a look at this

This is only a brief summary of Peter Unger's paper about how certainty entails dogmatism but I think it's enough to get the basic idea across that myself and (if I have understood him correctly) Ben are talking about.